How does one read I John and come away concluding that the antichrist there isn't associated with speculation about the end of the world?

I don't know. Maybe by not reading it?

Slouching Toward Silicon Valley? The Antichrist Goes Mainstream

... It is a common mistake, however, to associate the antichrist exclusively with speculation about the end of the world. When this mysterious figure first appears, it is not in the apocalyptic visions contained in the last book of the Bible. Rather, it is mentioned a few pages earlier, in two short letters traditionally attributed, like Revelation, to the apostle John. The author condemns those who “do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh,” explaining that “any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.” ...

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

 -- I John 2:18

And he missed it. Oh well!

I don't think the author was too terribly interested in what I John has to say anyway, only in what he has to say, which I did not find terribly compelling. Read it and decide for yourself. 

As for I John, it is obviously mistaken that it was the end of the world, no less than Jesus was mistaken about the end of the world, so these antichrists in I John weren't actually a sign of that, but I John unequivocally took antichrists for signs of the end of the world, and himself believed it was the end of the world.

I John notably has not just one antichrist but many, analogous to the false christs and false prophets predicted at the end of the world in the little apocalypses of the gospels (Matthew 24, Mark 13). And I John 4:1 explicitly states that "many false prophets are gone out into the world."

Both of these things are evidence that in I John's mind the antichrist is connected conceptually to those gospel narratives about the end of the world. That they are also false christs in his mind is proved by the fact that he says that they are docetists who deny, to borrow the Fourth Gospel's language, that the word was made flesh in the incarnation. 

So I John is nothing if not speculation about the end of the world, and you'd have to not read it to miss it. 

It is also notable that I John does not explicitly use the typical word for sign, let alone any word for sign, that we might expect him to use if in fact he is the same author as the author of the Fourth Gospel, who uses the language of signs like water. This is a little puzzling, but it does not detract from the main point that I John knows from the presence of antichrists that it is the last hour.

Be that as it may, Jesus after the flesh unequivocally repudiated such signs, but the new theology's Christ of faith which sprang up after him didn't just embrace signs.

For it, Jesus was the sign. 

And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. ... And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;

-- Luke 2:25f., 34

Oddly enough this Jesus grew up to say otherwise:

No sign shall be given to this generation (Mark 8:12).

Sign-seeking and sign-performing were the unequivocal evil business of the devil, this Jesus insisted (Matthew 4:1ff.; 16:1; Mark 1:13; 8:11; Luke 4:1ff.; 11:16).

But the empty tomb swamped that narrative.  It only exists side by side in the text which has come down to us in tension with the new narrative which now dominates it in which:

The resurrection became the ultimate sign, the sign of the prophet Jonah (Matthew 12:39; 16:4; Luke 11:29), justifying elaborate timetables for a second coming foretold by signs (Matthew 24:3; Mark 13:4; Luke 21:7); Jesus' miracles in the Fourth Gospel themselves become positively described as signs; Wonder-working becomes the sign of an apostle.

Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.

-- II Corinthians 12:12 

The message of Jesus in the flesh by contrast was like a bright flash, exposing the world's utter corruption and proclaiming its imminent transformation. But it came suddenly without signs to be observed (Luke 17:20f.), and especially not an antichrist.

The kingdom of God was already there among them, he said, and . . . they missed it.  

Because he's insane?

 

Why is Peter Thiel Talking So Much About the Antichrist?

Valerie Hudson, Deseret

OMG The Week says Peter Thiel is a devout Christian ...

 He is most certainly not a Christian, devout or otherwise.

... neither adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind ...  shall inherit the kingdom of God.

-- I Corinthians 6:9f. 

And why did Thiel's boyfriend, with whom he was cheating on his so-called spouse, die just like all the people die who cross Vladimir Putin? On which see below. 

Meanwhile The Week here adds to this decidedly not Christian horror show by quoting a fornicating Episcopal priest who has the gall to call Thiel . . . heretical!

As an Episcopal priest, “I find Thiel’s warnings heretical,” said Kevin Deal in the San Francisco Standard. In the Bible, the Antichrist represents “a foil to Christ,” not “a tool to sow fear or division.” Thiel is cynically weaponizing “the language of faith” to serve his own ends. 

Mr. Deal, formerly Mr. Neil, adopted his girlfriend's surname when they married after living together for over a year, including while at seminary. They were married, of course, by a female Episcopal priest. All of which was celebrated, of course, by The New York Times.

Thiel is heretical to these people because he is Republican, not because he is a faggot.

The UK Daily Mail here. 

If you're looking for the Antichrist, look no further than these principals. Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the antichrist is in your midst. 

 

 

The Unidentified Flying Objects in the air over New Jersey a year ago were supernatural only to the impressionable

 

 New Jersey drone and ‘UFO’ scare solved? Private contractor unveils strange aircraft, takes credit for sky mystery 

 A private company at a high-powered Army conference demonstrated a unique aircraft at the event — and allegedly took responsibility for setting off last year’s drone and “UFO” pandemonium in New Jersey, a source told The Post. ...

“You remember that big UFO scare in New Jersey last year? Well, that was us,” an employee of the unnamed contractor claimed to a small group after the demonstration, according to the source who was invited to the summit. ... 

The rash of supposed drone sightings in New Jersey began on Nov. 13, 2024 over Army base Picatinny Arsenal in Morris County and continued across the state through early December. ...

Mystery behind New Jersey UFO scare last year solved by private company

...The drone sightings have sparked online conspiracy theories that they might be connected to 'Project Blue Beam.' This outlandish theory proposes that NASA plans to establish a new world order through a fabricated religion led by the Anti-Christ. To make this believable, supporters claim a technological simulation of the 'Second Coming' would be orchestrated....

Just as Christ came but the world didn't end, the Antichrist already came, too, and the world didn't end then either

 

Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour.

-- I John 2:18

Peter Thiel rationalizing the post-war as the Age of Antichrist is the flip side of Christians rationalizing the church age as the kingdom of God

... Douthat: ... I’m just interested in how you get to a world willing to submit to permanent authoritarian rule.

 

Thiel: Well, there are these different gradations of this we can describe. But is what I’ve just told you so preposterous, as a broad account of the stagnation, that the entire world has submitted for 50 years to peace and safetyism? This is I Thessalonians 5:3 — the slogan of the Antichrist is “peace and safety.” And we’ve submitted to the F.D.A. — it regulates not just drugs in the U.S. but de facto in the whole world, because the rest of the world defers to the F.D.A. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission effectively regulates nuclear power plants all over the world. You can’t design a modular nuclear reactor and just build it in Argentina. They won’t trust the Argentinian regulators. They’re going to defer to the U.S. And so it is at least a question about why we’ve had 50 years of stagnation. And one answer is we ran out of ideas. The other answer is that something happened culturally where it wasn’t allowed. And the cultural answer can be sort of a bottom-up answer, that it was just some transformation of humanity into this more docile kind of a species. Or it can be at least partially top-down, that there is this machinery of government that got changed into this stagnationist thing. Nuclear power was supposed to be the power of the 21st century. And it somehow has gotten off-ramped all over the world, on a worldwide basis.

Douthat: So in a sense, we’re already living under a moderate rule of the Antichrist, in that telling. ...

 

Here in The New York Times. 

 

It's truly precious to see a gay man's warnings about cultural decadence, and Christianity, taken seriously by a purportedly Christian interlocutor for a purportedly serious newspaper. 

 

As Rod Dreher likes to say . . . 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Eschatological prophets don't leave gospels behind

 

p52, a 2nd century fragment of John from a codex

Jesus trying to keep his miracles quiet is in the news, by Father John Perricone, Ph.D., who alas in "Is Christ a Magician?" can't even get Matthew 16:4 right:

But, to our more serious question above. We should preface these words by God’s: “It is a wicked and perverse generation that asks for signs and wonders” (Matthew 16:4). 

The verse says nothing about wonders, which is a technical term most familiar to us from the Book of Acts, but also from the little apocalypses found in the gospels. The verse in question goes like this:

A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

The father is right that we observe a Jesus who does occasionally try to keep his miracles quiet. They are "often accompanied by a stern admonition to tell no one". The thing is, not all the time. And the Christian gospels are replete with them nevertheless. 

Mark's Jesus is even more emphatic about this than is Matthew's. Mark's Jesus was unequivocally against signs of any kind, not even the sign of the prophet Jonah, and not just to the Pharisees, but to his entire evil generation.

It's a downright odd thing for someone to say who is supposedly leaving a trail of them in his wake in exorcisms, healings, and nature miracles. The gospels proclaim a miracle worker who wanted the miracles kept quiet? This is akin to the problem known as the Messianic Secret. "I'm the Messiah, but don't tell anyone".

The eschatological context of this sign business is preserved by Mark, although at a distance, as it is by Matthew in like manner in his doublet of the saying (Matthew 16:1ff., 27):

And the Pharisees came forth, and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign [σημεῖον] from heaven, tempting him. And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation. ... Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

-- Mark 8:11f., 38 (cf. Matthew 12:38f.; Matthew 16:1ff., 27; Luke 11:16, 29f.).

The emphasis of the eschatological Jesus is on his message of repentance, not on his deeds.

Vincent Taylor recognized long ago that the eschatological Mark 8:38 was quite out of place where it is.

A lot of things seem loosely connected together in Mark, not just this. Just read the form critics.

In Mark's unskilled hands, signs likewise aren't yet quite exactly the same thing as miracles either. Miracle in Mark is instead typically referred to, when it is referred to at all, as the palpable expression of divine authority [ἐξουσία] (Mark 1:27; 2:10; 3:15; 6:7), or of divine power [δύναμις] (Mark 5:30; 6:2, 5, 14; 9:39).

And from the start, Mark presents Jesus as more than willing to demonstrate to the Scribes his divine authority to forgive sins by performing a miracle to prove it (this despite later noteworthy teaching requiring mutual forgiveness between men if there is to be forgiveness of men by God, in Mark 11:26, which is rather different; is that blasphemy, too?):

But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.  

-- Mark 2:10ff., Matthew 9:6ff., Luke 5:24ff. (similarly John 10:37f., 14:11).

We go back again the other way, though, in Mark 11:27-33, where Mark presents a Jesus who will NOT condescend to the chief priests, the Scribes, and the elders to demonstrate by what authority he had cast out of the temple the buyers and the sellers, the money-changers, and specifically the sellers of doves:

And Jesus answering saith unto them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.

So which is it?

 

In the same willy-nilly fashion, Mark has Jesus do an exorcism, a resurrection, and a healing of a deaf/dumb man in Galilee, one which Jesus wants declaimed, but the others which Jesus wants kept quiet:

Howbeit Jesus suffered him not [to follow him], but saith unto him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compassion on thee. And he departed, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men did marvel. 

-- Mark 5:19f.

And he charged them straitly that no man should know it; and commanded that something should be given her to eat. 

-- Mark 5:43

And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it; 

-- Mark 7:36.

So which is it?

  

Eventually Mark inexplicably makes Jesus actually respond positively and at great length to the question from Peter, James, John, and Andrew "what shall be the sign" of the coming of the destruction of the temple, in Mark 13:4, the beginning of the infamous Apocalyptic Discourse.

But why would Jesus do that, all of a sudden, and condescend to a question about signs  if "no sign shall be given"?

Obviously the Apocalyptic Discourse is post-resurrection re-interpretation of Jesus' original eschatological message that judgment was imminent. The warning had been the man and the message, but he got himself crucified, and with the man now gone they are in a new situation which is under pressure to explain itself. Like the supplied endings to Mark, the Apocalyptic Discourse bears all the marks of another time and other hands. But that is another matter.

As quickly, however, as Jesus deigns to entertain such talk of the sign of the end, Jesus warns in 13:22 that it is false Christs and false prophets who will come and do "signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect".

And with that we're right back to negativity about signs, which shows just how much that view was the original, dominant view going back to the historical Jesus and persisting beyond him in their memory.

So no sign it is.

(The positive embrace of miraculous signs in the supplied long ending in Mark 16:17, 20 may be dismissed as unoriginal to Mark on stylistic grounds, and not in the least because it conforms to the later ideas expressed for example by Luke in Acts).

 

This picture painted by Mark shows overall that he is confused and indecisive about what exactly to present as the actual content of Jesus' message, which Matthew and then Luke in their turn attempt to smooth over and remedy. It is one reason why Mark was not that popular in early Christianity. The relative paucity of witnesses to Mark, and the missing ending, if it really is missing, after 16:8 as late as Codex Vaticanus is . . . kind of a sign.

In the case of Mark 8, Matthew and Luke retain the harsh, negative evaluation of sign-seeking, but they augment the unequivocal "no sign shall be given" with "except the sign of Jonah", i.e. that the resurrection of Jesus after three days in the belly of the earth is the ultimate sign to this generation.

So the miracle of the resurrection is THE ONE legitimate sign, but none of the other miracles are signs? What are they then? Or were there no other such signs? Matthew and Luke haven't really thought this through. But of their post-resurrection re-interpretation of the original saying Mark knew absolutely nothing.

This is yet more evidence that the tradition is not solid, to put it mildly, and that the evangelists are willing, shall we say, to tamper with the word of God for theological reasons.

The solution of Matthew and Luke does little, either, to alleviate the wider problem involved, which is the failure of this evil generation to have faced the final judgment of the coming Son of Man predicted by Jesus.

But it is evidence of a trajectory of re-interpretation we see running through the Synoptics culminating in John, where we come to the explicit development of the completely different, positive understanding of sign as miracle.

And whereas the Synoptic witness is full of miracles by other names, and against signs more than not, miracles are now routinely called signs in the Fourth Gospel:

Turning water into wine at Cana of Galilee (John 2:11);

Destroying the "temple" "of his body" and rebuilding it in three days (John 2:18f);

Nondescript miracles which Jesus did in Jerusalem (John 2:23) which impressed Nicodemus (John 3:2); 

Healing a boy who was near death (John 4:48), Jesus' second miracle in Galilee (John 4:54);

Healing many who were sick (John 6:2);

Feeding the five thousand with five barley loaves and two fish (John 6:14, 26, 30);

Jesus' miracles generally (John 7:31);

Healing the man born blind (John 9:16);

John the Baptist performed no miracles but was right about Jesus (John 10:41);

The Pharisees are beside themselves what to do with Jesus, who does so many miracles, after Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead (John 11:47);

Some of the people hailed Jesus (triumphal entry into Jerusalem) as if he were king because of the miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead, as did also some of the authorities (John 12:18, 37); 

The appearance of Jesus in his crucified body to doubting Thomas was one of many miracles Jesus did after his resurrection (John 20:30). 

This last example in John rings the composition with the 2:18 allusion to Jesus' resurrection and echoes the re-interpretation of Mark 8 observed in both Matthew and Luke, who feel compelled to supplement Mark's "no sign, period" with "no sign but the sign of the prophet Jonah . . . who was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale" (Matthew 12:39f.; cf. Luke 11:29f.), which they put forward as a type of the resurrection.

The resurrection itself has now become a tool for proof of the truth of a different gospel, whereas Jesus as eschatological prophet had nothing to prove. Jesus insisted on the imminent end for this, his evil generation because "the kingdom of God is at hand" (Mark 1:15).

"Repent ye and believe the gospel".

That Jesus, the historical Jesus, was not interested in vindication by miracles and heavenly portents, but in actual demonstrations of repentance by his hearers, so that a few at least would be saved from that imminent judgment. Without those demonstrations there isn't any belief, and no salvation.

The new Jesus emphasizes the believing, which many can now get indefinitely into the future, even from a book:

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. 

-- John 20:30f.

The miracles are now constitutive of the message, so much so that John's Jesus can say:

. . . though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. 

-- John 10:38.

Whereas one may aver that to the final eschatological prophet who followed John the Baptist, the palsied fruit of repentance was a good thing (Matthew 3:8), not something to be healed from:

And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

-- Mark 9:45.

Luke omits in his version of the Olivet Discourse from Mark and Matthew the coming of false Christs who do signs and wonders

 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs [σημεῖα] and wonders [τέρατα]; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 

-- Matthew 24:24

For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.  

-- Mark 13:22

As detailed below, Luke positively values the signs and wonders of the apostolic age. He certainly doesn't want a Jesus who throws shade on them, especially since it is really "the holy child Jesus" by whose name the signs and wonders are done.

And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke:  

-- Acts 2:19

Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles [δυνάμεσιν] and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 

-- Acts 2:22

And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles.  

-- Acts 2:43

And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word, By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.

-- Acts 4:29f.

And by the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought among the people; (and they were all with one accord in Solomon's porch.  

-- Acts 5:12

And Stephen, full of faith and power, did great wonders and miracles [signs] among the people. 

-- Acts 6:8

He brought them out, after that he had shewed wonders and signs in the land of Egypt, and in the Red sea, and in the wilderness forty years.  

-- Acts 7:36

Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands. 

-- Acts 14:3

Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles [signs] and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.  

-- Acts 15:12

Luke's freedom in eliding entirely the "false Christs" line at a minimum shows that the apocalyptic tradition narrated in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 is not yet fixed in the evangelists' own time as they struggled to reimagine and repurpose the (failed) apocalyptic material of the earlier time of the historical Jesus which lies behind it.

It has long been recognized that this apocalyptic material is a series of independent units more or less successfully woven together into a "composite discourse", but it is a "tangled skein", some elements of which might be editorial by the evangelists, some pre-existing apocalyptic either Jewish or Jewish Christian, some authentically dominical, et cetera. So Vincent Taylor, The Gospel According to St. Mark, London 2nd edition, 1966, 1977, pp. 498ff., who considers Matthew a later version of Mark, but Luke, who has "little linguistic agreement with Mk.", to be a stand alone witness presenting material from "independent" sources who must be reckoned with for the development of apocalyptic but often is not.

As Taylor recognizes, Mark's vocabulary in 13:21f. has the "later ring" of "primitive Christianity" about it. It is an apocalyptic outlook now "strange to the mind of Jesus". So it would not be odd then for Luke to exclude it, concerned as he self-consciously is to lay out his history more accurately than have other evangelists.

What we have in these apocalyptic narratives, including Luke's, is revisionism at work.

The "false Christs" idea reflects later developments, a later Christianity on the way from a Judaism which had its own false prophets, to a later Pauline world populated also by a false gospel (II Cor. 11:4; Gal. 1:6), false apostles (II Cor. 11:13), false angels (II Cor. 11:14), the son of perdition (II Thes. 2:3), and ultimately the Antichrist(s) of I and II John.

The historical Jesus, imagining the imminent end of the world in his own lifetime, would never have imagined such developments by definition.

But Luke himself hasn't thought of such things, of course, nor about the implications for either his Gospel or his Apostle (Acts, primarily about Paul). Luke's aim is to present the signs and wonders characteristic of the early and middle Pauline period as proof of his Gospel.

What is also often not considered enough is that the false Christs language of Matthew 24 and Mark 13 might actually be explicit anti-Pauline propaganda, in which case this calumny might represent the particular trigger, among other deficiencies, which motivated Luke to compose his definitive two-volume work in defense of the real Jesus and his hero Paul as he understands them, in order that his patron Theophilus "may know the certainty of those things" in which he was instructed (Luke 1:4).

John and Paul do not agree on the identity of "the son of perdition"

To Paul the son of perdition is an AntiChrist figure who appears at the end of the world:

Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day [of Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

-- 2 Thessalonians 2:3

To John's Jesus the son of perdition is Judas, one of the Twelve, already come, and already lost, and completely uneschatological:

While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

-- John 17:12

What's Wrong With Rod Dreher, In A Nutshell

"I am a conservative Christian who believes that Obama’s re-election is on balance a bad thing for American Christians, for a number of reasons."

"On balance"?

That's like saying cancer is on balance a bad thing for the body, as if there might be something good to be said for it. 

Oh, but I can hear it already: "All things work together for good", or some such riposte, I'm sure.

Like Keynesianism, Christianity always has an answer for why its not wrong.

Here.